With V6 engines, we may see a return in the title Ferrari of : "166F1" or Dino . I think the power, will be around 650 hp. Best regards
Apart that it may not sound too sexy to be associated with the 4-cylinder turbo engine for some car makers, probably from an image point of view, I fail to see why so many constructors have lobbied against it to get the V6 turbo adopted instead. From an engineering point of view, it makes no sense. 1600cc is quite a small engine anyway, and the 4-in-line configuration offers many advantages compared to a V6 of same capacity, that will be wider, heavier and more difficult to package. Compared to a 4-in-line, a V6 needs a more complex exhaust system (both sides of the block), and creates heat problems that have to be resolved. A turbo engine will need a heat exchanger (radiator), and that can't be placed near a source of heat like the exhausts of a V6 engine, but can be located on one side of the 4-in-line. A V6 will probably be located longitudinally and upright in an F1. A 4-in-line can be canted, lay-down or even made transversal , offering several packaging solutions to the designers. The advantage of multi-cylinder engine is that they tend to rev higher and develop more power that way. But the tendency nowadays is to regulate the revs and to impose a limit, in fact negating the advantage of multi-cylinder engines. In any case, a turbo engine will not rev as high as an atmospheric engine; another argument against multi-cylinders. Finally, when it comes to engine breathing, a 1600cc 4-in-line engine offers combustion chambers of 400cc each, which in an over-square engine gives the optimum manageable piston surface according to years of research on the subject.
Great points, but I believe overall the 2 additional cylinders can allow for not only more boost but a more controlled boost due to more even exhaust pulses. The heat exchanger placement situation could allow for some creativity but I believe it is better having two (one for each sidepod) than one. Someone said earlier that 650bhp is possible. Depending on how boost pressure is ultimately regulated, these engines could yield substantial power causing output we have not seen for a while or potentially never seen. Anyone remember BMW's nicknamed 'megatron' motor? Big power with turbos
Probably that we will never know if a 4-in-line turbo is superior to a V6 turbo anyway, because that design will be outlawed from the outset. But I maintain that it could be more practical. Since boost pressure and revs limit will probably be imposed, the advantage of multi-cylinder engines will be non exstent anyway. I will stick to my theory that less is better anyway. I remember when the 3litres regulations came to effect in 1966, almost everyone went for V12 (Ferrari, Eagle-Weslake, Matra, BRM) and even H16 (BRM), only to be defeated by a stock-block V8 engine at the back of Jack Brabham's car: the Buick-based REPCO. The following year, Ford commissioned Duckworh to design a V8 racing engine, the DFV Cosworth that won more championships than any others. Why? It was compact, light, practical and easy to work on. Almost 50 years later, the same could be said of a turbo 4 against a V6, I guess.
Please see post #12 above - I listed a couple of the disadvantages of this approach.... Please see post #10 above Cheers, Ian
Remember another reason they wanted to move away from the fours was sound. The six should sound much better.
+1 I dunno if it carried any weight, but "sound" was high on F1 fans list of priorities in the LG survey..... Having said that, the BMW "Megatron" sounded friggin' *awesome*! Cheers, Iaqn
Not sure if this is a repost but it would appear that Audi was the main force pushing for the L4-Turbocharged engine formula for 2013. http://en.espnf1.com/fia/motorsport/story/52832.html "Adrian Newey has revealed that Audi was the driving force behind the aborted plans for Formula One to switch to four-cylinder engines in 2013."
It is rather odd too me aswell adopting an engine configuration that will increase manufacturing cost, plumbing cost and if it is a tt setup (which it should be) every cost cutting corners will be lost. Or F1 could just revert to 'stock' blocks and the sports main inception will be forever forgotten. Frankly I'm alittle scared about the future of F1 as an old schooler yet then again I do not want to start making premature assumptions.
Newey said that you cant use a I4 as a stressed member like a V6 and that you would need to build a space frame around it.
You were obviously not around in the turbo years. I hate these damned motorcycle-sounding engines of today. We've been listening to that for 10+ years. Maybe with Honda, Toyota and BMW leaving somebody noticed? Another newbie? Nobody (here) seems to think the 70's were bad, and they didn't rev to 20k then, I think it was more like 11K was the limit before your crank turned to spaghetti. ??? BMW can beat that tomorrow with a 28 yr old 1.5 liter turbo engine. In fact, in Q trim it was rumored to be near 1300 HP. BUT - here's the catch: if they mandate pump gas, it won't get near 1300 HP, that thing back in 83 ran on rocket fuel, any of you ever go near that car? I did. Fess up: you really like nascar, the IRL and IROC racing, right?
I have never met a F1 engine that I did not like and I love the sport too much to worry about what engines they run. I'm happy to see some change in the sport every now and again. I'm curious too findout how the V6 will compare to the V8's dimension wise.
Done deal: V6 turbos for 2014 http://www.motorsport-aktuell.com/automobil/fia-segnet-v6-turbo-fuer-2014-ab-3865735.html FIA has officially approved the new engine formula as 1.6 liter V6 turbos beginning in 2014.
How about rev limit? Many tracks and Bernie didn't want less than 18K rpm. I bet those FIA clowns didn't even think of restricting fuel. Heck, they could also dictate pump gas and high-flow cats, if they really want to be green. But leave the V8 NA 18K-rpm engines alone.
They're now requesting the rev range to be extended from 12k to 15k rpm. I think this is a fair compromise. 12k rpm would hardly even require the use of pneumatic valves which are somewhat of an F1 mainstay
LOL, more comments from an unsubscribed that never went to a Turbo F1 race. (?) Source? Maybe a Link? How do you figure? Is it more expensive to slap a turbo on an engine that revs at 12K, or is it more expensive to design and build an engine that will survive 2-3-4 races at 21K RPM? My guess is the former, because the BMW 4Turbo engine wasn't THAT exotic, but the turbo and fuel itself was. My guess is they will try to mandate an engine (type) that can gain more manufacturers such as Kia, Hyundai and others. Don't laugh - because everyone else laughed when Renault got into it in the 70's.
